Smt Anees Fatima And Others vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1341 Tel

        HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI


             M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 2479 OF 2015 and 30 of 2016


COMMON JUDGMENT:


     These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment

since     M.A.C.M.A.      No.2479      of    2015   is   filed   by   the

Claimants/Appellants seeking enhancement of compensation and

M.A.C.M.A.No.30 of 2016 filed by the respondents-Andhra Pradesh

State Road Transport Corporation represented by its Vice Chairman

and Managing Director and the Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State

Road Transport Corporation, Kachiguda Bus Depot, being aggrieved

by the award and decree dated 10-07-2015, made in M.V.O.P No.89 of

2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

Cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short, the

Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred

to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:

The claimants have filed the claim petition under Sections 166, 163-

A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-

lakhs for the death of the deceased-Mohd. Meeran Mohiuddin, who

died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29.09.2013 at about

10:00 A.M, near Afzalgunj Bus Stop, Hyderabad. It is stated by the

petitioners that on the fateful day, the deceased was proceeding on a

motorbike bearing No. AP 28 AY 3955 towards Falaknuma side and

when he reached near Afzulgunj Bus stop, RTC Bus bearing No. AP 28

Z 0850 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and collided

with motorbike of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and

received grievous injuries on his head and other body parts.

Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad

and while undergoing treated he succumbed to death. Based on the

report, Police, Afzalgunj registered a case against the driver of the

offending Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 0850 and after investigation charge

sheeted him for the offence under Section 304-A IPC for rash and

negligent driving. It was further contended that the deceased was aged

about 57 years at the time of accident and working as Superintendent in

the office of the Engineer in Chief, Irrigation and CAD Department,

Hyderabad and used to earn Rs.43,129/- per month. As a result of the

accident, the claimants lost the sole bread winner of the family and

therefore, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-

against the respondents-Corporation.

4. Before the tribunal respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed counter

denying the averments of the claim petition and the manner in which

the accident occurred, including the age, avocation and income of the

deceased. It is further contended that on the fateful day, the deceased

was not having valid driving licence and the motorcycle was in road

worthy condition to ply. At that point of time the driver of the

offending vehicle was 50 meter away from the bus stop and negotiating

a turn, meanwhile, the deceased came from a bye-lane to the right side

of the bus without observing the bus, he colluded with the RTC Bus

and sustained grievous injuries. Furthermore, he also contends that he

is at no fault and therefore, liability to compensate for the death of the

deceased cannot be fastened on the respondents and prayed for

dismissal of the case.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following

issues:

1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased, Mohd. Meeran Mohiuddin, due to the

rash and negligent driving of the RTC Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 0850 ?

2. Whether the petitioner are entitled to any compensation, and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief ?

6. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1

to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A 11 got marked. On behalf of the

respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were got marked.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned

Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation. Perused the

material available on record.

8. The learned counsel for claimants vehemently argued before this

court that the claimants have proved their case that the deceased was

working as Superintendent in the office of the Engineer in Chief,

Irrigation and CAD Department, Hyderabad and used to earn a gross

salary of Rs.43,129/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal has

deducted 10% towards income tax and further deducted 50% annual

income and did not add future prospects. Thus, awarded meager

amount. Hence prays the court to allow the appeal and enhance the

compensation amount.

9. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the

respondent has contended that there is negligence on the part of the

deceased who was riding his motorcycle and the trial Court erred in

holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving

of the RTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 0850 and that the tribunal erred in

taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,39,550/- though the tribunal

considered that PW-1 admitted that he was given compassionate

appointment in the same Department as Junior Assistant and his mother

is getting pension of Rs.17,000/- to Rs.18,000/- per month and the left

over service of the deceased was only eight months. Therefore, the

learned Standing Counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal.

13. With regard to the manner of accident, a perusal of the impugned

judgment discloses that the Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with the documentary evidence Ex.A-1 First

Information Report, Ex.A2 Charge Sheet, has rightly held that the

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

RTC bus. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the findings of

the tribunal.

14. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the

claimants, the deceased was working as Superintendent in the office of

the Engineer in Chief, Irrigation and CAD Department, Hyderabad and

used to earn a gross salary of Rs.43,129/- per month. In proof of the

same, he has filed Ex. A-8 Pay-Slips issued by Engineer in Chief,

Irrigation and CAD Department. A perusal of Ex-A-8 discloses that

his gross salary is Rs.43,129/-. After deducting Rs.200/- towards

professional tax, his salary comes to Rs.42,929/-. In view of the

decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited

Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimants are entitled to future

prospects @ 15% of her income, since the deceased was aged 57 years.

Thus, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.49,368/-

(42,929/- + 6,439/-). Since, the dependants are two in number, after

deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased the net

monthly contribution of the family comes to Rs.32,912/- (49,368 -

16,456 = 32,912/-) and after deducting 10% towards income tax, it

comes to Rs.29,621/- per month. As per the decision of the Apex Court

in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the appropriate

multiplier is '9' as the deceased was 57 years old at the time of the

accident. Thus, applying the multiplier '9', the total loss of

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

dependency comes to Rs.29,621 x 12 x 9 = 31,99,068/-. In addition to

that, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional

heads (Rs.70,000/- + 10% enhancement thereon). Thus, in all the

claimants are entitled to Rs.32,76,068/-.

16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.2479 of 2015 is partly allowed

and the compensation is enhanced from Rs.20,52,972/- to

Rs.32,76,068/- to be paid by the respondents-Corporation. The

enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of

petition till the date of realization. The amount shall be deposited

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the

claimants in the ratio as ordered by the Tribunal. On such deposit, the

claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount. M.A.C.M.A.No.30 of

2016 shall stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

                                             ______________________
21.03.2023                                   M.G.PRIYADARSINI. J